THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date :20.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.149 of 2022 & CMP.No.5676 of 2022

1. Rani

2. Murugan

3. Saravanan

4. Palaniammal

5. Minor Parimala Rep. by guardian and next friend her grandmother Kasthuri

6. Kottaiammal

7. Kasthuri 8. Alamelu

9. Ponniammal

10. Chinnaponnu

11. Tallammal

12. Subbuammal

13. Govindaraj

14. Mohan

15. Sulochana

16. Muniyan

17. Ramamoorthy

18. Krishnamoorthy ... Appellants Versus

1. Vasanthakumari

2. Vijayakumari ... Respondents PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Order and Decreetal Order dated 09.12.2021 made in I.A.No.1368 of 2018 in O.S.No.301 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet by allowing this regular first appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.V.V.Sathya – R1 No appearance – R2

JUDGMENT

Challenging the Order of the trial Court in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal came to be filed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018 for the following reliefs :

i. To declare the plaintiffs' title and for consequential relief of to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule mentioned property.

ii. To declare the partition deed dated 10.09.1988 which was registered on 10.10.1998 as document No.1285 of 1988 which was done between t he defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar and Thiru Narasa Reddiar in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property which is falled in 'A' schedule mentioned properties of Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar as null and void;

iii. To declare the partition deed dated 17.07.2000 which was registered on 28.08.2000 as document No.1091 of 2000 which was done between the defendants' father Thiru Adhiappa Reddiar and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property which fell in 'C' schedule of the first defendant as null and void;

iv. To directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and to pass other suitable relief or reliefs;

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

An extent of 3 acres in Survey No.189/1 has been owned by one Saravana Pillai and Nataraja Pillai which was purchased by one Parvathiammal vide sale deed dated 17.01.1963 and and she has settled the property in favour of the plaintiffs 17 and 18 on 15.06.1978. However, the defendants while dividing the property on 21.04.1994, instead of survey No.189/1, survey No.188/1 has been wrongly mentioned at the instance of one Srinivasa Pillai. Later the defendants have partitioned the property including the plaintiff's property in survey No.188/1. Hence, the plaintiff has sought declaration and also cancellation of consequent documents.

4. An application has been taken out by the defendants to reject the plaint on the ground that the property in survey No.189/1 is the ancestral property of the defendants and the property was originally partitioned between Athiyappa Reddiar and Narasa Reddiar and the suit property has been allotted to Athiyappa Reddiar and patta has also been given in their name. That apart a suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 has been filed by the first defendant against one Srinivasa Masthri and plaintiffs 12 to 15. Therefore, sought to reject the plaint.

5. The trial Court considering the submissions on either side, holding that partition has been taken place more than 30 years back and hence, presumption can be drawn against plaintiffs and the fact that there was an earlier suit filed by the first defendant against one Srinivasa Mesthri and the plaintiffs 12 to 15, rejected the plaint.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused entire materials available on record.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the documents of the year 1963 and 1978 clearly show that the ancestors of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Since the said survey was wron